I thought Apple recently said they weren't too interested in original programming?
Apple says a lot of things for strategic purposes. They are generally pretty straight with their customers, but they don't owe their competitors anything.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time. A bundled service of channels is making less and less sense
Apple needs nothing from the cable providers. The less they work with them, the better
What would be interesting if Apple could add an antenna to Apple TV for to pull in live HDTV channels which are mandated by law. ABC, NBC, CBS. That would help secure sine live sports programming
Here is the problem, most of the large cable operators own most of the good content. Apple does need them more than they need Apple. Personally if Apple could land a deal with Discovery Networks, I would be happen and drop what I have and switch over to Apple and Discovery. Discovery has the worlds largest view audience for their combine content with a little over a 1B viewers. This could be a huge win for apple to land them. But I understand is Discovery is not interest in streaming all their content especially the most popular one.
This is the biggest issue. Comcast, http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/company-overview, owns Comcast Cable, NBCUniversal (lots of TV channels and stations as well as parks and resorts), Comcast Spectacor (sports management), and Comcast Ventures. In other words, they are way too big and should be broken up. People and politicians complain about Apple stifling competition, look at Comcast. It's not just Xfinity and an internet provider. Discovery Communications, https://corporate.discovery.com, might be even worse. They own 75 TV channels with 3B global viewers. When I look at my Comcast station list, Discovery-owned channels account for close to half of them. I'm not against someone making money but having so much in the hands of so few companies is not competitive and should be investigated--which of course it won't be because these same companies line the pockets of all politicians.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time. A bundled service of channels is making less and less sense
Apple needs nothing from the cable providers. The less they work with them, the better
What would be interesting if Apple could add an antenna to Apple TV for to pull in live HDTV channels which are mandated by law. ABC, NBC, CBS. That would help secure sine live sports programming
Here is the problem, most of the large cable operators own most of the good content. Apple does need them more than they need Apple. Personally if Apple could land a deal with Discovery Networks, I would be happen and drop what I have and switch over to Apple and Discovery. Discovery has the worlds largest view audience for their combine content with a little over a 1B viewers. This could be a huge win for apple to land them. But I understand is Discovery is not interest in streaming all their content especially the most popular one.
"Good content" is very subjective, and this implies that customers value a choice. In general, customers are leaving cable companies. Their install base is dwindling, which is objective evidence that customers don't value that "good programming."
What may happen (and this article seems to support) is that the content providers (like Discovery) may see that they can get a better deal from a party other than the cable companies. Exclusive rights generally cost more, but with a dwindling customer base through the cable outlets, providers will look elsewhere to maintain revenue and profits. Meanwhile, Apple is selling consumers other distribution systems, and improving their capabilities, reliability, and flexibility. Those systems even encourage new content providers via apps.
Competition is good. While some have commented that Apple needs the content more than the content studios need Apple, that misses the point. The *cable companies* are losing customers, and they need the content providers.
I thought Apple recently said they weren't too interested in original programming?
Apple says a lot of things for strategic purposes. They are generally pretty straight with their customers, but they don't owe their competitors anything.
So you think he was being less than truthful when he said what he said? Why say anything at all if it's not the truth? Being quiet about their plans isn't giving competitors anything either.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time. A bundled service of channels is making less and less sense
Apple needs nothing from the cable providers. The less they work with them, the better
What would be interesting if Apple could add an antenna to Apple TV for to pull in live HDTV channels which are mandated by law. ABC, NBC, CBS. That would help secure sine live sports programming
They're not negotiating with cable companies with the exception of Comcast who owns NBC. They're negotiating with the content providers, ABC/Disney, CBS, FOX, Viacom etc. so that they can compete with the cable companies.
Antennas are great but do not work for much of the population that is too far from transmitters. That is not the solution.
It's all going to apps anyway. HBO, Netflix, CBS, etc... It is only matter of time.
agreed on Apps. i have little to no desire to watch "live" tv. all i use are apps and pull up the stuff i want on demand. most of the major networks have these apps for cable subscribers, tho most of them dont offer full catalogs yet.
Well, Apple does not need to offer a TV service anymore. Apple only needs to maintain and improve their tvOS and SIRI so that user continue to dump traditional tv.
Why don't the cable companies offer a skinny bundle? Because they make more money stuffing fat bundles down people's throats. AppleTV has CBSN & SkyNews for free. Add Hulu and Netflix and you are good to go. Well, people are now cutting cords and sharing access passwords but eventually traditional TV channels will be ignored completely.
YouTube has tons of contents for free. Legal or not. When video content becomes like music content was in the Napster sharing era, the cable and content companies will come to their senses.
They need Apple's tvOS more than Apple needs them. The future of TV is Apps.
If Apple really wants this to happen, they'll need someone like Phil Schiller (maybe even Tim Cook as well) to do the negotiations .
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Well he does an ace job of convincing people that $360 in parts is worth $850, he should have little problem in convincing content providers that their $100 of content is really only worth $30. . . . (I am joking)
Way to go Eddy! I'm sure his bonus was larger than ever.
And he deserves every penny.
The cable companies wanted the option to increase prices as soon as the service took off. Cue said no, because He know that customers would see the price gouging as coming from Apple.
The studios see Apple's cash and want a sweeter deal than they are currently getting from others.
So, keep up the hardball negotiating tactics, Eddy! The longer the studios holdout due to greed, the more time you have to get your own original programming lined up, which will enable you to move forward without studio programming.
I thought Apple recently said they weren't too interested in original programming?
EDIT: Yes they did. “We’re not in the business of trying to create TV shows,” Cue said. “If we see it being complementary to the things we’re doing at Apple Music or if we see it being something that’s innovative on our platform, we may help them and guide them and make suggestions. But we’re not trying to compete with Netflix or compete with Comcast.”
Read it again.
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
This is interesting: www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/
> The HD Home Run is a networked tuner for cable tv or over the air digital tv. The Channels apps does work with it. Yes, it is kinda expensive. The only thing this buys me is to keep the AppleTV running for LiveTV so I don't have to switch TV input sources to watch LiveTV.
Apple says a lot of things for strategic purposes. They are generally pretty straight with their customers, but they don't owe their competitors anything.
So you think he was being less than truthful when he said what he said? Why say anything at all if it's not the truth? Being quiet about their plans isn't giving competitors anything either.
Purchasing original programming isn't the same as creatingoriginal programming. Apple is stating that they aren't interested in creatingoriginal programming, but like Netflix and Amazon, they are more that happy to purchase it if it fits their demographics. Arguably, Dr. Dre's upcoming program for Apple Music is creation, but likely an exception, not the rule.
This is interesting: www.silicondust.com/hdhomerun/
> The HD Home Run is a networked tuner for cable tv or over the air digital tv. The Channels apps does work with it. Yes, it is kinda expensive. The only thing this buys me is to keep the AppleTV running for LiveTV so I don't have to switch TV input sources to watch LiveTV.
Concur. But fairly, some will find the wireless connection through the house (or yard?) via wifi valuable. No dragging a coax along to a remote TV, just an ATV (or apparently a "smart TV.")
It's just plain sad that these media companies do not get it. The pirate methods far exceed what they offer and it's getting easier and easier to setup these systems. You effectively can use the Internet as your DVR. You aren't recording at all you are just telling automated systems what you want and then it magically appears within about an hour of airing and you can typically get the back catalog of episodes most of the time. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper and it's easy to either buy a home NAS or build one. They are soon to be in big trouble in the next few years. Perhaps Apple will have to wait till they are desperate like the music industry.
If you don't adapt to the new digital world then pirates will fill the void, the more you fight it and make life difficult for the consumer the more the pirates will fight back. The only way to win against the pirates is to make it super easy to use and inexpensive. Tear down the walls and go global, you will gain a huge untapped market. Game Of Thrones in the most pirated show in history. HBO Now is starting to turn tremendous profits they would have otherwise never tapped.
It's just plain sad that these media companies do not get it. The pirate methods far exceed what they offer and it's getting easier and easier to setup these systems. You effectively can use the Internet as your DVR. You aren't recording at all you are just telling automated systems what you want and then it magically appears within about an hour of airing and you can typically get the back catalog of episodes most of the time. Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper and it's easy to either buy a home NAS or build one. They are soon to be in big trouble in the next few years. Perhaps Apple will have to wait till they are desperate like the music industry.
If you don't adapt to the new digital world then pirates will fill the void, the more you fight it and make life difficult for the consumer the more the pirates will fight back. The only way to win against the pirates is to make it super easy to use and inexpensive. Tear down the walls and go global, you will gain a huge untapped market. Game Of Thrones in the most pirated show in history. HBO Now is starting to turn tremendous profits they would have otherwise never tapped.
As to you last assertion, I can provide a data point: I signed up for HBOGo to just get Season 6 of GoT. I got the first month free, but am considering keeping it for a second month...just to pay the $15 I thought the 10 episodes were worth. I'll sign back up for season 7. Sure, I could have downloaded and stolen it, but...$15 is fair. $1.50/ episode? Sure.
I watched the previous seasons on DVD from the library.
I am very close to cutting the cord. I have Sling for our South Asian Channel needs, and probably will soon move for other channels, when the big networks do get on the SlingTV. Also waiting for SlingTV to fix various serious problems they have - First, there are connectivity issues, I think their servers, especially for on-demand contents needs to be upgraded. I don't think they can manage the through put. Secondly, their App has some serious issues, especially the Android versions - They are constantly crashing. The iOS version is stable. The usability is also crap. The search function needs some serious work. I will only find one show. I would like to find all the shows so that I can build a playlist and play through that. Every time the app crashes, it doesn't have a good way to get back where I left off. I hope the Apple TV version is better, though I doubt it. Finally, their support is only via online and no one to talk to. They need to work on support also.
Apple has allegedly taken a hardline approach in negotiating with content owners for a potential $30-per-month streaming television service --?a strategy that may have backfired on the company, a new report suggests.
Citing people familiar with the negotiations, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Apple's offers were stunningly low, even to close partner Disney, leaving content owners feeling "alienated." Of particular issue was said to be Apple's demand to lock in, for several years, monthly rates per viewer, a major change from how TV networks traditionally operate and increase profits.
Apple's negotiations were said to be handled by Eddy Cue, the company's senior vice preside of Internet Software and Services. Disney, in particular, was said to be eager to sign up for an Apple streaming service, until they heard the proposed terms.
Disney's lack of interest is particularly noteworthy because the company's CEO, Bob Iger, serves on Apple's board of directors, and the two companies have worked closely together for years, dating back to Disney's acquisition of Pixar from Apple co-founder Steve Jobs in 2006.
Unsurprisingly, other major content owners weren't receptive to Cue's pitch either. The Journal said Apple's negotiations with both 21st Century Fox and CBS failed to gain traction.
Apple's alleged plans called for a $30-per-month service that would feature both live channels and an on-demand library of content.
Talks between Apple and content owners have been ongoing for some time. The company originally hoped to announce a streaming TV service at WWDC 2015 and launch it alongside the fourth-generation Apple TV.
When talks collapsed, Apple pushed forward and released new Apple TV hardware and software, with a dedicated tvOS App Store, last fall.
It is stupid to ask content providers to lower their own profits for an Apple created thin channel for AppleTv. It would make no sense for them. After all, they can easily maintain or increase their profits by creating their own apps for AppleTV. After all, they can point to how much profit Apple itself is making. After all, they don't have to.
Comments
What may happen (and this article seems to support) is that the content providers (like Discovery) may see that they can get a better deal from a party other than the cable companies. Exclusive rights generally cost more, but with a dwindling customer base through the cable outlets, providers will look elsewhere to maintain revenue and profits. Meanwhile, Apple is selling consumers other distribution systems, and improving their capabilities, reliability, and flexibility. Those systems even encourage new content providers via apps.
Competition is good. While some have commented that Apple needs the content more than the content studios need Apple, that misses the point. The *cable companies* are losing customers, and they need the content providers.
Antennas are great but do not work for much of the population that is too far from transmitters. That is not the solution.
why would they want the head of Marketing to negotiate content contracts?
Apple only needs to maintain and improve their tvOS and SIRI so that user continue to dump traditional tv.
Why don't the cable companies offer a skinny bundle?
Because they make more money stuffing fat bundles down people's throats.
AppleTV has CBSN & SkyNews for free. Add Hulu and Netflix and you are good to go.
Well, people are now cutting cords and sharing access passwords but eventually traditional TV channels will be ignored completely.
YouTube has tons of contents for free. Legal or not.
When video content becomes like music content was in the Napster sharing era, the cable and content companies will come to their senses.
They need Apple's tvOS more than Apple needs them.
The future of TV is Apps.
.
.
.
(I am joking)
The cable companies wanted the option to increase prices as soon as the service took off. Cue said no, because He know that customers would see the price gouging as coming from Apple.
Read it again.
Apple said they weren't interested in making original programmes. They didn't say they they weren't interested in buying original TV programmes.
If you don't adapt to the new digital world then pirates will fill the void, the more you fight it and make life difficult for the consumer the more the pirates will fight back. The only way to win against the pirates is to make it super easy to use and inexpensive. Tear down the walls and go global, you will gain a huge untapped market. Game Of Thrones in the most pirated show in history. HBO Now is starting to turn tremendous profits they would have otherwise never tapped.
I watched the previous seasons on DVD from the library.
It is stupid to ask content providers to lower their own profits for an Apple created thin channel for AppleTv.
It would make no sense for them.
After all, they can easily maintain or increase their profits by creating their own apps for AppleTV.
After all, they can point to how much profit Apple itself is making.
After all, they don't have to.